Sixteen year olds in Scotland can have sex, get married, start a family, work, pay taxes - why on earth shouldn't they get to vote?

The greater question should be: why are they allopwed all this stuff so far beyond them?

The vast majority has no job at sixteen, can offer no needed skills at sixteen, shouldn't be having sex at that crazy age, and as far as marriage and procreation is concerned, who the hell do you think pays all the social security bills to support those young idiots and their offspring?

Because the law might be wrong on all those counts doesn't imply that it is therefore right to add an additional madness to the permitted list.

But let's not play games: the idea is that the sixteen years age group is easy prey to the buying of the socialist vote. You offer all the free, somebody else pays, goodies without the slightest implication that work is needed, your work, to get there and of course that appeals to a chap of sixteen whose greatest commitment in life is to Rangers or Celtic football teams. But I forgot: so it is with many adults there, too. So why would either age group refuse the bait?

Instead of "I like what he's got; I'll work my asss of and go one better," some rejoice in "fuck him: I haven't got it so why should he have it? I'll scratch it. See how he likes that, Jimmy."

Clearly, this thread has turned into another black/white/black/white with no hope of an honest self-examination, so I'm out of this. Envy rules.

Actually, I would be, on occasion, on the verge of succumbing to its siren call, but then I would remember all those Nascar fans, all those rednecks, all those "clinging to guns and religion," and would start to feel really sorry to disenfranchise so many honest, hardworking people and put Republicans at a disadvantage in elections. Just not fair.

Oh, wait, you actually meant the poor, Blacks and Latinos would fail the test. I got ya!

... The problem with our current taxes is that most of them are for things that, under the Constitution, aren't legitimate...

Why are you guys so evasive and secretive when it comes to actually spelling out what are those "illegitimate things"? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunch milk, unemployment benefits...? What else would you eliminate?

Why are you guys so evasive and secretive when it comes to actually spelling out what are those "illegitimate things"? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunch milk, unemployment benefits...? What else would you eliminate?

Don't forget Big Bird. The key to fiscal health is the cancellation of Sesame Street.

Don't forget Big Bird. The key to fiscal health is the cancellation of Sesame Street.

Finally. It's already taken too long before someone got to the point in this thread. Big Bird should be eliminated. I never liked the character, the freeloader (one of 47%) is always looking down on people ... Elmo might be a problem, too many people eligible to vote can relate to his point of view.

Actually, I would be, on occasion, on the verge of succumbing to its siren call, but then I would remember all those Nascar fans, all those rednecks, all those "clinging to guns and religion," and would start to feel really sorry to disenfranchise so many honest, hardworking people and put Republicans at a disadvantage in elections. Just not fair.

Oh, wait, you actually meant the poor, Blacks and Latinos would fail the test. I got ya!

Some politicians would also fail the test....don't forget them. Oh, and what about the Nikon shooters?

But realistically, probably an even number of people (supporters as well as politicians) from both Democrats and Republicans would fail.

I would not (and could not) support such a measure, but I understand the logic of those that do support it.

One important point not mentioned. What guarantee do the Republicans and Democrats who are doing well out of the system have that they will always do well? A lot of the suffering people have being doing well and suddenly they are destitute and wondering what hit them. The money they had in the bank swallowed up by a bank crash or a ponzi scheme. Job lost or the wife has scampered with the lover and the bankbook. The "handouts" are there as safety net for ALL citizens when it is needed and nobody can guarantee they won't need them at sometime?

Rob getting personal doesn't do you any favours. You don't need to have "lefty" politics to understand the need for a safety net. It is basic compassion for all despite their politics. I think you have exposed your lack of compassion in this thread. Sometimes in life no matter how much you strive you end up in the smelly stuff and need a hand out of it?

For the records, and for the benefit of the non-Americans who may not know our politics ...Such fascist nonsense was outlawed in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act and have not really been part of the political dialogue since.

I suspect such fascist nonsense is out there on the fringe in most other countries too, Jeremy. America is not an exception there.

... to make sure nobody was confused by such comments and infer that there actually was some kind of political debate going on in the US about restricting voting rights.

Jeremy, pardon my limited comprehension of English, but it seems to me that the above sentence is meant to say there is NO political debate going on in the US about restricting voting rights? If so, how about the current legislative efforts (i.e, way past debate stage) regarding voters registration, which, in turn, effectively results in restricting voting rights?